Agenda item

At its last meeting on 8 December 2020, the Council had considered a draft Council Size Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).  The Council agreed to refer the matter for further consideration by the Corporate Governance Task Group at its meeting held on 14 December 2020 for the purpose of:

(a)     giving further consideration to the requirements of the review generally and in particular to that referred to on pages 4-5, 13, and 21 of the LGBCE’s guidance to councillors;

(b)     reviewing the contents of the Council Size Submission; and

(c)     consideration of the forecast increase in electorate by 2026

and reference back to this extraordinary meeting of the Council for final approval of the Council Size Submission.

At its meeting on 14 December, the Task Group was provided with details of the Council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours and forecast increase in electorate by 2026 and had reviewed the contents of the draft Submission.  The proposed revised draft Submission, as recommended by the Task Group including tracked changes, was set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council. This now stated a preference for maintaining the current Council Size of 48 Councillors, based on the retention of all out elections every four years.

The Chairman of the Corporate Governance Task Group, Councillor Deborah Seabrook proposed, and Councillor Liz Hogger seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

(1)       That the Council Size Submission, attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, and its stated preference for maintaining a Council size of 48 Councillors, be approved and presented to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

(2)    That the Democratic Services and Elections Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Task Group, be authorised to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the revised draft Submission document as the Council may determine.

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Seabrook as the mover of the original motion, indicated that, with the consent of her seconder and of the meeting, she wished to alter her motion as follows:

Alter paragraph (1) of the motion so that it reads (changes shown in italics):

“(1) That, subject to the amendments below, the Council Size Submission, attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, and its stated preference for maintaining a Council size of 48 Councillors, be approved and presented to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

(a)    On page 17 of the revised draft Submission (page 30 of the Council agenda), after “There are no plans to introduce area planning committees.”, add the following paragraph:

“All councillors are involved in the planning process dealing with enquiries from residents regarding planning applications.  Planning Committee members will have a significantly greater involvement as they deal with those applications referred to the committee for determination, most of which are locally sensitive or controversial. Meetings of the Planning Committee often take three hours or more to complete and committee members can expect to need several hours to read and understand the plans, respond to residents’ representations, and visit particular sites.   Planning applications in respect of strategic sites identified in the Local Plan, will carry even greater sensitivity and will require a significant time commitment from councillors on the Committee, in addition to the normal business.”

(b)   On page 28 of the revised draft Submission (page 41 of the Council agenda), under “Alternatives”

(i)      amend the first paragraph as follows:

“In considering the appropriate Council size, we have looked at the implications of reducing the number of councillorsto 44 fewer than 48 but feel that this would not provide sufficient Councillor capacity to undertake the range of roles set out in this proposal or offer sufficient community leadership.  It is also recognised that the Borough will continue to see significant population growthin view of the anticipated housing development, for example at the various strategic sites identified in the Local Plan.  andWe therefore believe that a reduction in number of councillors would result in an increase in electorate represented by each councillor and an increase in councillor workload in terms of casework and community leadership.”

(ii)     substitute the following in place of the second paragraph:

“We have also looked at a comparable increase in councillor numbers (an increase of three councillors was awarded to Guildford in 1998 and the borough’s population has increased by 25% since then). An increase of, say, four to 52 councillors would still mean each councillor represents 2279 each by 2026 (128 electors per councillor more than present 2151) and more thereafter. However, the financial implications of a general increase in councillor numbers would be hard to justify in the current difficult financial climate. As stated above, once the warding review has been undertaken and the need for possible adjustments in councillor numbers taken into account to achieve appropriate revised ward boundaries, we reiterate that this should be by an adjustment by way of an increase in councillor numbers rather than a reduction, for the reasons articulated in this Submission.”

(c)    On page 29 of the revised draft Submission (page 42 of the Council agenda), add the following paragraph to the “Conclusion” immediately before “The Council also wishes to continue with all-out elections every four years”:

“On the basis of the Commission’s expectation (as stated in their guidance) that the Council makes a submission for a council size that we believe is right for our authority and which enables the Council to “represent communities in the future and ensure that governance arrangements reflect our long term ambitions”, and takes into account future trends, we believe that the Council size should be at least 48”.

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as indicated above. The motion, as altered, therefore became the substantive motion for debate.

Following the debate on the substantive motion, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)  That, subject to the amendments below, the Council Size Submission, attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, and its stated preference for maintaining a Council size of 48 Councillors, be approved and presented to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

(a)    On page 17 of the revised draft Submission (page 30 of the Council agenda), after “There are no plans to introduce area planning committees.”, add the following paragraph:

“All councillors are involved in the planning process dealing with enquiries from residents regarding planning applications.  Planning Committee members will have a significantly greater involvement as they deal with those applications referred to the committee for determination, most of which are locally sensitive or controversial. Meetings of the Planning Committee often take three hours or more to complete and committee members can expect to need several hours to read and understand the plans, respond to residents’ representations, and visit particular sites.   Planning applications in respect of strategic sites identified in the Local Plan, will carry even greater sensitivity and will require a significant time commitment from councillors on the Committee, in addition to the normal business.”

(b)   On page 28 of the revised draft Submission (page 41 of the Council agenda), under “Alternatives”

(j)      amend the first paragraph as follows:

“In considering the appropriate Council size, we have looked at the implications of reducing the number of councillorsto 44 fewer than 48 but feel that this would not provide sufficient Councillor capacity to undertake the range of roles set out in this proposal or offer sufficient community leadership.  It is also recognised that the Borough will continue to see significant population growthin view of the anticipated housing development, for example at the various strategic sites identified in the Local Plan.  andWe therefore believe that a reduction in number of councillors would result in an increase in electorate represented by each councillor and an increase in councillor workload in terms of casework and community leadership.”

(ii)     substitute the following in place of the second paragraph:

“We have also looked at a comparable increase in councillor numbers (an increase of three councillors was awarded to Guildford in 1998 and the borough’s population has increased by 25% since then). An increase of, say, four to 52 councillors would still mean each councillor represents 2279 each by 2026 (128 electors per councillor more than present 2151) and more thereafter. However, the financial implications of a general increase in councillor numbers would be hard to justify in the current difficult financial climate. As stated above, once the warding review has been undertaken and the need for possible adjustments in councillor numbers taken into account to achieve appropriate revised ward boundaries, we reiterate that this should be by an adjustment by way of an increase in councillor numbers rather than a reduction, for the reasons articulated in this Submission.”

(c)   On page 29 of the revised draft Submission (page 42 of the Council agenda), add the following paragraph to the “Conclusion” immediately before “The Council also wishes to continue with all-out elections every four years”:

“On the basis of the Commission’s expectation (as stated in their guidance) that the Council makes a submission for a council size that we believe is right for our authority and which enables the Council to “represent communities in the future and ensure that governance arrangements reflect our long term ambitions”, and takes into account future trends, we believe that the Council size should be at least 48”.

(2)    That the Democratic Services and Elections Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Task Group, be authorised to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the revised draft Submission document as the Council may determine.

Under the Remote Meetings Protocol, a roll call was taken to record the vote on the substantive motion, the results of which were 30 councillors voting in favour, 5 against, and 2 abstentions, as follows: